Prevention of delayed bleeding after resection of large colonic polyps.

A significant problem encountered in the resection of large, complex colonic polyps is delayed bleeding. This can occur up to two weeks after the procedure and is a significant source of comorbidity. Untreated it can prove life threatening. It is therefore a priority of modern endoscopy to develop and employ techniques to minimaize this. In this article we will review and discuss the evidence base and controversies in this field, with cold EMR technique, Post-EMR clip closure, and topical haemostatic agents.

Risk factors for delayed colorectal postpolypectomy bleeding: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To systematically analyze risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) in colorectum. METHODS: We searched seven large databases from inception to July 2022 to identify studies that investigated risk factors for DPPB. The effect sizes were expressed by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The heterogeneity was analyzed by calculating I2 values and performing sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 15 articles involving 24,074 subjects were included in the study. The incidence of DPPB was found to be 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01-0.03), with an I2 value of 98%. Our analysis revealed that male sex (RR = 1.64), history of hypertension (RR = 1.54), anticoagulation (RR = 4.04), polyp size (RR = 1.19), polyp size ≥ 10 mm (RR = 2.43), polyp size > 10 mm (RR = 3.83), polyps located in the right semicolon (RR = 2.48) and endoscopic mucosal resection (RR = 2.99) were risk factors for DPPB. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, hypertension, anticoagulation, polyp size, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, polyps located in the right semicolon, and endoscopic mucosal resection were the risk factors for DPPB. Based on our findings, we recommend that endoscopists should fully consider and implement effective intervention measures to minimize the risk of DPPB.

Endoscopic treatment of scarred polyps with a non-thermal device (Endorotor): A review of the literature .

Endoscopic resection (ER) of colorectal polyps has become a daily practice in most endoscopic units providing a colorectal cancer screening program and requires the availability of local experts and high-end endoscopic devices. ER procedures have evolved over the past few years from endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to more advanced techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and endo-scopic full-thickness resection. Complete resection and disease eradication are the ultimate goals of ER-based techniques, and novel devices have been developed to achieve these goals. The EndoRotor® Endoscopic Powered Resection System (Interscope Medical, Inc., Northbridge, Massachusetts, United States) is one such device. The EndoRotor is a powered resection tool for the removal of alimentary tract mucosa, including post-EMR persistent lesions with scarring, and has both CE Mark and FDA clearance. This review covers available published evidence documenting the usefulness of EndoRotor for the management of recurrent colorectal polyps.

Evaluation and Management of Malignant Colorectal Polyps.

The detection rate of dysplastic colorectal polyps has significantly increased with improved screening programs. Treatment of dysplastic polyps attempt to limit morbidity of a procedure while also considering the risk of occult lymph node metastasis. Therefore, a variety of methods have been developed to predict the rate of lymph node metastasis to help identify the optimal treatment of patients. These include both the endoscopic and pathologic assessment of the lesion. In order to reduce the morbidity of surgery for patients with low-risk lesions, multiple endoscopic therapies have been developed, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, and transanal endoscopic surgery.

Recurrence and Carcinogenetic Rates of Colorectal Polyps.

AIM: to determin the recurrence rate of benign recto-colonic polyps in a 5-year interval, and compare the development rate of intrapolypoid carcinomatous lesions in polypectomized versus nonpolypectomized subjects. MATERIAL AND METHOD: a group of 77 patients diagnosed with recto-colonic polypoid lesions during the period 2014-2019 underwent colonoscopy at the time of study initiation and then annually during a five-year interval. Results: The recurrence rate of polyps increased annually from 5 to 12.5%; the highest rate was noted in the last two years. The five-year cumulative risk of neoplastic lesions was 73% in patients without polypectomy and 20% among those with endoscopic resection (p 0.05). Comparing the recurrence rate of benign lesions (60%) in patients without neoplastic findings with the recurrence rate of adenomas in patients with benign lesions (40%), a higher risk of recurrence was found in the first category, and seemed to be influenced by the personal history of pre-existing adenomatous lesions. CONCLUSION: an increased risk of colorectal polyps recurrence was reported during five year follow up; moreover, during the first three years an increased risk of malignant transformation was observed among cases in which endoscopic resection was not feasible when compared to those in which complete excision was feasible.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been an emerging substitute for conventional EMR (CEMR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficiency and safety of the two techniques for removing ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched up to February 2023 to identify eligible studies that compared the outcomes of UEMR and CEMR. This meta-analysis was conducted on the en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, adverse events rate and recurrence rate. RESULTS: Nine studies involving 1,727 colorectal polyps were included: 881 were removed by UEMR, and 846 were removed by CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in en bloc resection rate [Odds ratio(OR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.36-2.10, p<0.00001, I2 = 33%], R0 resection rate(OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.14-2.03, p = 0.004, I2 = 31%) and complete resection rate(OR 1.67, 95%CI 1.06-2.62, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%) as well as a significant reduction in procedure time(MD ‒4.27, 95%CI ‒7.41 to ‒1.13, p = 0.008, I2 = 90%) and recurrence rate(OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, p = 0.006, I2 = 6%). Both techniques were comparable in adverse events rate. CONCLUSION: UEMR can be a safe and efficient substitute for CEMR in removing ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps. More studies verifying the advantages of UEMR over CEMR are needed to promote its application.

A population-based analysis on the incidence of metachronous colon cancer after endoscopic resection of advanced adenomas with high-grade dysplasia: does location matter?

BACKGROUND: Advanced adenomas (AAs) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) represent a risk factor for metachronous neoplasia, with guidelines recommending short-interval surveillance. Although the worse prognosis of proximal (vs distal) colon cancers (CCs) is established, there is paucity of evidence on the impact of laterality on the risk of subsequent neoplasia for these AAs. METHODS: Adults with HGD adenomas undergoing polypectomy were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000-2019). Cumulative incidence of malignancy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Fine-Gray models assessed the effect of patient and disease characteristics on CC incidence. RESULTS: Of 3199 patients, 26% had proximal AAs. A total of 65 cases of metachronous adenocarcinoma were identified after polypectomy of 35 proximal and 30 distal adenomas with HGD. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CC was 2.3%; when stratified by location, it was 4.8% for proximal vs 1.4% for distal adenomas. Proximal location was significantly associated with increased incidence of metachronous cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.05-5.38). CONCLUSION: Proximal location of AAs with HGD was associated with >3-fold increased incidence of metachronous CC and shorter time to diagnosis. These data suggest laterality should be considered in the treatment and follow-up of these patients.

Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) appears to be a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. To assess the effectiveness and safety of EMR for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a thorough search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies reporting on EMR of SSPs ≥ 10 mm, up until December 2023. Our primary endpoints of interest were rates of technical success, residual SSPs, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Our search identified 426 articles, of which 14 studies with 2262 SSPs were included for analysis. The rates of technical success, AEs, and residual SSPs were 100%, 2.0%, and 3.1%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the technical success rates were the same for polyps 10-19 and 20 mm, and en-bloc and piecemeal resection. Residual SSPs rates were similar in en-bloc and piecemeal resection, but much lower in cold EMR (1.0% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.034). AEs rates were reduced in cold EMR compared to hot EMR (0% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.168), in polyps 10-19 mm compared to 20 mm (0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.255), and in piecemeal resection compared to en-bloc (0% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.169). CONCLUSIONS: EMR is an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm. The therapeutic effect of cold EMR is superior to that of hot EMR, with a lower incidence of adverse effects. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023388959.

HOT VERSUS COLD SNARE FOR COLORECTAL POLYPECTOMIES SIZED UP TO 10MM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events. METHODS: A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding. CONCLUSION: Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

Updates on the Prevention and Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in the Colon.

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.

Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10 mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10 mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Recurrences of advanced sessile and lateral spreading colorectal adenoma after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) thermal ablation versus no adjuvant therapy (RESPECT): a protocol of an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, large benign lateral spreading lesions (LSLs) and sessile polyps in the colorectum are mostly resected by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). A major drawback of EMR is the polyp recurrence rate of up to 20%. Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) is considered an effective technique to reduce recurrence rates. However, clinical trials on STSC have mainly been conducted in expert referral centers. In these studies, polyp recurrence was assessed optically, and additional adjunctive techniques were excluded. In the current trial, we will evaluate the efficacy and safety of STSC in daily practice, by allowing adjunctive techniques during EMR and the use of both optical and histological polyp recurrence to assess recurrences during follow-up. METHODS: The RESPECT study is a multicenter, parallel-group, international single blinded randomized controlled superiority trial performed in the Netherlands and Germany. A total of 306 patients undergoing piecemeal EMR for LSLs or sessile colorectal polyps sized 20-60 mm will be randomized during the procedure after endoscopic complete polyp resection to the intervention or control group. Post-EMR defects allocated to the intervention group will be treated with thermal ablation with STSC of the entire resection margin. Primary outcome will be polyp recurrence by optical and histological confirmation at the first surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include technical success and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The RESPECT study will evaluate if STSC is effective in reducing recurrence rates after piecemeal EMR of large colorectal lesions in daily clinical practice performed by expert and non-expert endoscopists. Moreover, endoscopists will be allowed to use adjunctive techniques to remove remaining adenomatous tissue during the procedure. Finally, adenomatous polyp recurrence during follow-up will be defined by histologic identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05121805. Registered on 16 November 2021. Start recruitment: 17 March 2022. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 April 2025.

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.